Planning Board Approves Plans For Emily Dickinson Museum. 40R Zoning Discussion Postponed Until November 18

Report On The Planning Board Meeting Of (11/4/20) 

The meeting was held as a Zoom webinar and was simulcast on Amherst Media Channel 17. The recording of the meeting can be found here.

Board members present: Jack Jemsek (Chair), Maria Chao, Doug Marshall, Andrew MacDougall, Thom Long,  Janet McGowan, Johanna Neumann. Staff: Planning Director Chris Brestrup and Administrative Assistant Pam Field-Sadler, 

Public Comment: none

Continuation of Public Hearing on Emily Dickinson Museum (from October 21,2020) 

Landscape architects Selene Weber and Martha Lyon and Museum Director Jane Wald were again present to advocate for the Museum’s plan to install a permeable pathway between the Emily Dickinson Homestead and the Evergreens and to install lighting to illuminate the paths and the two homes, as well as to remove some trees.

Most members of the Planning Board viewed the plans favorably. Neumann said she drove by the homestead one evening and found the lighting “tasteful and lovely.” Marshall also thought the lighting on the Dickinson house was great, but felt the security light behind the Evergreens was too harsh, and would prefer it only be lit when the other lighting is turned off. The applicants said that the current security lighting is not the permanent lighting planned. The final lighting will be less bright.

Brestrup indicated that the Local Historical Commission had issued a certificate of appropriateness for the project at its last meeting. 

The only controversy arose over the hours the property will be lit. The plans were to light the buildings until 10 PM every night. Lighting on the paths will be turned off when the museum closes. McGowan said that she drove around Amherst after dark and noted that most of the town was dark, with the exception of the Johnson Chapel at Amherst College. She wondered if the intent of zoning bylaw 11.2417 which states that “All site lighting…shall be extinguished outside of those business hours established under an approved site management plan” is being violated by the Dickinson Museum plan.  Marshall asked if McGowan was an originalist, needing to know the intent of every zoning regulation. McGowan countered that before setting a precedent of allowing lighting of buildings after business hours, the Planning Board should look into the legislative intent of the bylaw and bring the matter back to a vote at the next meeting.

Brestrup thought that the bylaw was created when the site plan review was established in 1987 or 1988 and was based on the bylaw for special permits which was probably written in the 1940s. That bylaw is written with exactly the same wording. Determining the intent of the bylaw would be difficult.

MacDougall felt that McGowan’s concerns were valid and wanted to know if Brestrup and Morra thought that approving this lighting plan would set a precedent that would negatively impact abutters of properties that would be lit into the night. Chao thought this lighting plan would not set a precedent, since the Dickinson Museum should be considered a landmark, not a business.

The Planning Board approved the plan with stated conditions  6-0-1 with McGowan abstaining.

Roads Completed in Applebrook Cluster Subdivision( now Hartwell Farms)(see here). Town Engineer, Jason Skeels reported that roads in the subdivision were substantially finished so the lot being withheld from sale pending completion of the roads could now be released from hold. This passed unanimously.

Public Hearing on Extending Temporary Zoning Article 14
This hearing, held in conjunction with the Community Resources Committee of the Town Council (CRC) discussed the extension and expansion of the temporary zoning law which allows administrative approval for certain uses during the pandemic.  The proposal presented by Morra involves extending the temporary zoning period from the original six months ending December 16, 2020 to December 31, 2021. Office Park and Professional Research Park zones were added, as were medical uses and farm stands. Also, in the new proposal, temporary structures, such as tents and portable bathrooms could be approved directly by the Building Commissioner and Planning Director without a site plan review.  All temporary changes must be returned to the original state at the conclusion of the pandemic. However permanent changes on private property may remain.

McGowan suggested that, since the proposed zoning article did not allow for notification of nearby residents or businesses as is required for usual approval, the proposed changes be prominently posted in the front window or entrance of the business while the approval is pending. This would be a courtesy notice, not an opportunity to influence the project, though Morra said that all complaints from the public are addressed by the Building Department.  Morra said that he could put a template notice in the application packet, so it would not be extra work for the Planning Department or delay the approval process. This suggestion was accepted by both the Planning Board and CRC unanimously. The original proposal will be amended, and the first reading will be at the Town Council Meeting on November 9.

In public comment, Pam Rooney asked if permanent changes under this temporary bylaw would eventually come before the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals.  Brestrup replied that they would not.

Other Planning Board Business
Discussion of the proposed 40R Smart Growth zoning was postponed to the next meeting on November 18. 

Marshall and Brestrup have been meeting to develop a matrix of what sections of the 2010 Master Plan have been implemented and which have yet to be dealt with. They will bring their findings to a subsequent meeting.

Brestrup raised the issues discussed in a letter from Bruce Carson received the day of the meeting which involved concerns over the proposed conversion of a garage on Strong and East Pleasant Street to apartments. The concern was chiefly over the resident manager who might be an undergraduate. This letter was not in the posted Planning Board packet, and some Planning Board members had not had a chance to review it thoroughly.

Brestrup said that the concept of a resident manager is not well defined in the Zoning Bylaw and it might be a topic for the Planning Board to discuss in the future. Jemsek suggested a larger topic of providing affordable housing for non-student Amherst residents, perhaps by providing tax abatements of owner occupied properties. Jemsek and Brestrup will come up with some suggestions. They will plan to invite former Planning Board member Rob Crowner and Affordable Housing Trust chair John Hornik to the next meeting.

Brestrup announced that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved Valley Community Development Corporation’s Supportive Studio Housing project for 132 Northampton Road at their October 29 meeting.

The Planning Board meeting adjourned at 9:30. 

The next meeting will be November 18 at 6:30 PM